If we consider the progress of the Indian Constitution, there are three levels of obstacles in this journey of secularism; It can be said that difficulties have arisen. The first of these was/is about the clarity of the concept of secularism. The second is about the secular practice of the state institution. What is secularism and how should the state organization follow it, as well as why and how the state organization felt the need to sidestep secularism in its current affairs, these difficulties also arose. On the other hand, the treatment of ‘civil society’ in India also became a prominent problem in the acceptance of secularism.

Also Read : Inverted Glasses: 800 in 24 Hours!

Secularism has been accepted by the Indian Constitution but our conceptual understanding of what exactly is secularism has always remained patchy and sketchy. Even in the petition now filed in the Supreme Court, this sardhopt understanding will be seen working. Although the adjective secular was included in the Preamble of the Constitution during the dark period of Emergency, the earlier Constitution was and still is secular. Secularism in the Constitution is not only expressed through mention or (reference) in the Preamble. This secularism is not merely symbolic. Among the fundamental rights provisions of the Constitution; The concept of secularism has been conceptually expanded in the discussion about them.

The concept of secularism is western and therefore relevant to India; The argument that it is not necessary is often made even in serious philosophical and vehement political debates. The constitutionalists themselves, however, found many levels of content in the acceptance of secularism. Secularism was advanced in the specific historical and cultural context of Europe in the context of the tussle between organized religion and monarchy. Therefore, secularism means that religious institutions and state institutions are separated from each other. It is inadequate and wrong. Beyond Europe; Other modern national societies, including India, adopted secularism for various reasons. One of the reasons is modernity itself. dignity of the individual in modern society; Authority and the rise of secular, public spheres would put some limits on the social control of religion; Such an idea is implicit in secularism. This position is not to renounce religion, but to suggest that religion cannot have absolute control over social affairs. Therefore, secularism assumes that public affairs should not be controlled ‘only’ through religious institutions. That is, secularism is not merely a principle governing the conflict between two or more religious communities; Modern-day individual freedom, the formation of society on the basis of multiple identities, and acceptance of the value called democracy act as a principle. In a multi-religious and multi-identity-inventing society like India, the constitutionalists strongly felt that this principle becomes important, but apart from that, the concept of secularism and its political-social practice becomes important in a modern but ‘so-called’ mono-religious national society as well. This is because the context of secularism is linked to modern social practices, the systemic value of democracy, the concept of individual rights and the multifaceted nature of modern national societies.

Also read: Personalities: Nya. K. S. Puttaswamy

However, the government’s dealings in this regard have remained ambiguous and tricky. Various historical, situational factors were responsible for the ambiguity in the implementation of secularism. The Constitution of India as a modern constitution embraces the principle of individual liberty but also protects collective rights; closed classes on the basis of religion, majority and minority created by colonialism; Many serious questions about what exactly to follow secularism in the background of many factors such as nationalism, tribalism politics and the numerical criteria that are indispensable for the majority in a democracy; On occasion, honest embarrassments are seen standing before the bodies of the legislature, executive and judiciary involved in the functioning of the state organization.

But unfortunately it has to be said that the state body played a clever politics around secularism while looking for an answer to this serious dilemma. A measure in this regard has to be included in the ranks of the Parliament as well as of the Judiciary. In realizing the multifaceted practice of secularism, the state has to choose between the rights of individuals and the rights of religious communities. At the same time, there is a need to intervene in the jurisdictional conflict between the two religious communities. And while making such judgments, the state body is not expected to be neutral, but it is also expected to actively intervene in the affairs of the religious body and bring about religious ‘reform’ as per the constitution. The role of the courts in the background of these multifaceted interventions regarding secularism becomes important as they have had to adjudicate many concrete cases in this context so far. It will not be possible to go into a detailed discussion of the judgments rendered by the Courts and Legislatures of India so far in this connection. But the overall texture of these judgments has to be said to be a clever political transaction due to three reasons. One is the need to choose between individual rights and (religious) collective rights that arise when the legislature and even the judiciary are seen to uphold the rights of the religious community rather than the rights of the individual. On the other hand, as part of the creation of a modern national society, it was the responsibility of the state to intervene positively in the religious sphere and bring about ‘reform’. It will be found that she has gradually abandoned this role in her career. On the other hand, it can be seen that the insistence on this type of religious reform is mainly directed towards the communities considered as religiously ‘minorities’. Naturally, these clever policies resulted in the rise and dominance of closed religious identities in Indian politics, while on the other hand, far from eradicating injustices against women of all faiths, these injustices were suppressed.

Also read: Implications: Census will get time?

Finally, the contribution of ‘civil’ society in the arduous journey of secularism must also be recorded. There too, instead of going into details, three salient points can be made. One is a nationalism based on closed, frustrated religious identities nurtured from India’s civil society. Second is the misuse of communal rights by the elites of these groups and the third is the ‘secularist’ elites’ inadequate understanding of the phenomenon called religion and hence the concept of secularism. This ignorance of the Indian civil society has unfortunately led to the defeat of the principle of secularism i.e. democracy and diversity.
(The author is a senior scholar of political science.)